The "Same-Sex Marriage" Debate.

• Phunkie wrote on 2010-05-03 06:38

  Quote from Gargamaru;26616:

  Because its not the norm, its not average.
  
  Possibly when it becomes less taboo I wouldn't be against them raising children.
  
  Marriage? Fine. Children? Not so much. Just trying to think about the kid itself.

  
  
  There are kids with so many types of parents.
  
  One parent.
  Two parents, divorced.
  Two parents, one disabled.
  Foster parents.
  
  Heck, I heard of a blind couple who got married and had kids.
  
  AND a family of midgets, whose kids were taller than the parents.
  
  These are not average families, but the kids usually end up growing up like any other kids.
  
  
  At the other hand, I would think that the kids of these different, non-average parents would love them even more, once knowing all the difficulties and obstacles they've faced in life just because they were different.
  
  I don't agree with you therefore.
  
  In school they'll make fun of you for anything. In society too. But if your parents raise you well (whoever they are), it doesn't matter. Yes, it's a little harder if you're gay (in some places), but not everywhere. Definitely not everywhere.
  
  
  Kids end up fine, especially if they've had two Dads or Moms since they can remember. It's normal to them, right? They would question it when they see their other classmates with a Mom and a Dad, perhaps. But they wouldn't love their own parents any less.
  
  And if people are willing to give love and receive it too, why not let them adopt?
• Osayidan wrote on 2010-05-03 11:24
  I can't say that I agree with marriage, since I consider religion one of the worst inventions of humanity, and marriage is a religious thing.
  I do feel that any consenting bunch of people can be together and do whatever they want together, and that it isn't anyone's business but their own.
  
  If they want to do all the legal stuff, I'd support a civil union as opposed to marriage, since it doesn't involve any sort of religious nonsense. I'd say the same for any couple though, be they hetero or not.
• Syrphid wrote on 2010-05-03 17:18
  This issue is identical to that presented in the incest thread, yet responses seem to be completely opposite. What gives?
  
  Arbitrary hate is arbitrary, it seems.
• Virtue wrote on 2010-05-03 17:48
  Gay marriage is fine, it's just a secular contractual agreement. At least when it's not done in the religious-institution sense.
  
  But I don't agree with two members of the same sex as parents.
• Iyasenu wrote on 2010-05-03 17:57
  My side on the Same-sex marriage debate has always kinda confused me.
  
  Me? I'm a Christian. Always have always will, ya'know.
  But when I keep seeing that SSM is against the law here, I always get annoyed.
  So I support SSM. But it's confused me since according to my religion homosexuality is deemed wrong.
  I just kind of picture myself in that situation of loving someone but not being able to marry them... which is kinda hard itself since I've kinda always been single lol, but you get the picture. Empathy would be the word for it I think.
  
  But as for polygamy and incestual relationships.... They... always kind of weirded me out... technically I guess it's not my place to keep anyone from doing anything so long as it's not something bad or hurting someone...
  
  
  I don't even mind if it's called "marriage".
  As for being raised by SS parents... I guess it wouldn't matter.
  My childhood was hardly what would fit into definition of the ever decreasing pool of families that have "normal" lives. :XD:
  So as long as they don't happen to be abusive or neglectful (just like straight people can be) or something and they show their children love like parents should, then it should be fine.
  
  But my views still kind of contradict themselves.
  I'm supposed to find homosexuality wrong(?)
  But I'm supposed to treat others as I'd like to be (even if it means to find nothing wrong with homosexuality...?)
  
  I mean, I'm happy to be Christian, it's just touchy topics like this make me bend the rules a bit. :P
  
  
  But in short, I support SSM. And even though polygamous or incestuous relationships kinda weird me out, that's just an opinion and shouldn't really be against the law... Not like just because something is made to be legal, we have to do it as well.
  
  Well, that's all for now I think. :oops: I typed a bit, huh?
• Virtue wrote on 2010-05-03 18:04

  Quote from Iyasenu;26937:

  As for being raised by SS parents... I guess it wouldn't matter.

  
  Not directed at you per se, but it isn't known if being raised by same-sex parents is as psychologically healthy as a traditional home.
  
  Inb4 single moms, abusive fathers etc... We are talking adoption here, very long and selective process.
• starpaw7 wrote on 2010-05-03 18:15
  Everyone typed for me except for:
  
  How is it "less healty" to be raised by gay parents than a straight couple :what:
• Justified wrote on 2010-05-03 18:16

  Quote from EndlessDreams;26728:

  You talk as if children of minority groups aren't discriminated against their peers. (Whether it is religious, ethics, wealth, and/or etc.)

  
  
  Why add more fuel to the fire? Just because this kid is gonna get discriminated against for being -insert race here-, that doesn't mean you should go ahead and name him -insert crappy name here- and make him wear -insert crappy clothes here-. Just because the kid is gonna have a hard time, that doesn't make it okay to make it even harder.
  
  

  Quote from Syrphid;26926:

  This issue is identical to that presented in the incest thread, yet responses seem to be completely opposite. What gives?

  
  
  First thing on my mind since the OP, and nobody brought it up.
  Argument in support of SSM - Anybody who loves each other should be able to get married. This doesn't affect me, why should it matter?
  Incest couples love each other, and won't affect you. Doesn't that mean it's okay to do?
  Oh right, and polygynous and polyandrous groups as well
  
  Also, in response to that HIV study, I don't think it was completely off the mark. This is mostly for male couples.
  
  

  [SIZE="1"]“There is a significant increase in the risk of contracting HIV when engaging in anal sex,” the paper warns. It cites studies indicating that “Young homosexual men aged 15-22, who had anal sex had a fivefold increased risk of contracting HIV over those who never engaged in anal sex.”
  
  The brief notes also that “Over 70% of all AIDS diagnoses in Canada in adults over the age of 15 up to June 2004 were in homosexual men (13,019 out of 19,238).”
  
  The brief warns “Any attempts to legalise gay marriage should be aware of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia. While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in pedophilia, it is of grave concern that there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among pedophiles and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make pedophilia acceptable.”
  
  The doctors cite the Journal of Homosexuality in demonstrating an overlap between the homosexual activist movement and the promoters of pedophilia. Moreover, the paper references studies showing that while “the number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is less than 3%,” “the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%.” It concludes: “Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.”[/SIZE]

  
  
  http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/feb/05021709.html
  
  In short...
  Anal sex has a 500% chance of contracting HIV as opposed to no anal sex. Homosexuals perform anal, therefore it is bad.
  70% of HIV in Canada in 6/2004 was homosexual men. Obvious bad thing is obvious.
  Homosexuality and pedophilia are somewhat related. According to a survey (?) 3% of the total population is homosexual, but 25% of the pedophilia population is homosexual. Meaning, proportionally, there are less heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual ones. Allowing homosexuality would be somewhat endorsing pedophilia.
  
  /revives thread
• Juno wrote on 2010-05-03 18:16
  For the record, while the bible states that homosexuality is a sin it also states that we're to 'give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's' which sparing you the full story amounts to not forcing our beliefs into the country's law. A Christian shouldn't be engaging in a ssm but they also shouldn't be trying to make it illegal for others to do so.
• Rime wrote on 2010-05-03 21:41

  Quote from Syrphid;26926:

  This issue is identical to that presented in the incest thread, yet responses seem to be completely opposite. What gives?
  
  Arbitrary hate is arbitrary, it seems.

  
  
  It has to do with culture. Kids today are being taught by the media to be more tolerant towards gay relationships. Not much progress has been in the incest department. I'd wager that, from a biological standpoint, it has to deal with people's inherent, psychological aversion to incest. It's been shown in various studies that children who grow up within the same household are less likely to be attracted to one-another; this trait is shown to not be limited to people who are very closely related by blood, meaning a boy and his half/adopted sister will be as likely to fall in love as a bother and sister related by blood (this might explain the grandma incest thing). However, units of the family are usually associated as blood relatives, so people referring to incest usually refer think about the blood relatives that they've grown up with. In addition to this, there are well-known repercussions to producing with closely related kin, including the circulation of genetic diseases and higher risks or birth defects. All of these factors culminate into very cemented norms that people instinctively follow in choosing their partners.
  
  A large factor that contributes to the norms dictating against gay relationships religion (Judeo-Christian religions to be exact), and as of recently, religion seems to be losing its voice against the media that's been promoting the newfound tolerance towards these types of of relationships. As a result, there has been more tolerance towards gays, while the tolerance level towards incest has remained relatively the same.
  
  

  Quote from Juno:

  
  Eventually, someone's going to come in and disagree and all of you are going to jump on them like those evil flying monkeys from the Wizard of Oz.
  
  That being said, I think this thread is a horrible idea since it's not really something that can be debated with numbers and facts so much as opinions.
  
  Annnnnd that being said marriage right now caters to hetero couples who are child-bearing, at least in the US. Tax breaks and such apply even before children because they're obviously coming. I think marriage laws should be reworked to accommodate couples that are childless and plan to remain that way. No need to discriminate on sex, just on children in terms of tax breaks. Adopted kids count too. Of course, I doubt many people really plan to get married just for the tax breaks.

  
  
  No one has children for tax breaks. It's not worth it. I don't recommend it at least D:
  If anything, the breaks should apply to income level in that married couples with similar income level pay a smaller amount of tax than they would if they were single. Not sure if legal unions count work the same way though.
  
  

  Quote from Juno;26955:

  For the record, while the bible states that homosexuality is a sin it also states that we're to 'give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's' which sparing you the full story amounts to not forcing our beliefs into the country's law. A Christian shouldn't be engaging in a ssm but they also shouldn't be trying to make it illegal for others to do so.

  
  
  By that logic, gay Christians should either renounce their faith or stop being gay. Both choices sound ridiculous.
• Justified wrote on 2010-05-03 22:39
  I missed the conversation that went on in that locked thread so I won't go further into it, but it's pretty hypocritical to allow one but not the other.
  
  "People naturally don't find relatives attractive, therefore don't tolerate it" - Does everybody who supports SSM find their fellow man/woman attractive? I doubt that everybody who is pro-SSM is either gay or bi.
  "Incest leads to genetic diseases" - Well, homosexually leads to sexually transmitted diseases at a much higher rate.
  
  "True love which doesn't affect me" applies to SSM, so why not incest? If it doesn't work for incest, then it shouldn't work for SSM, and therefore that entire logic doesn't work and anti-gay marriage wins.
• Tomates wrote on 2010-05-03 23:02
  I'm super okay with same sex marriages. I feel anyone should marry anyone if they love them.
  I was awfully surprised when California voted down same sex marriges. I went there 2 summers ago and there's a rather large gay community there and it seemed like everyone supported one another whether you were straight or not.
• Rime wrote on 2010-05-03 23:08

  Quote from Justified;27185:

  I missed the conversation that went on in that locked thread so I won't go further into it, but it's pretty hypocritical to allow one but not the other.
  
  "People naturally don't find relatives attractive, therefore don't tolerate it" - Does everybody who supports SSM find their fellow man/woman attractive? I doubt that everybody who is pro-SSM is either gay or bi.
  "Incest leads to genetic diseases" - Well, homosexually leads to sexually transmitted diseases at a much higher rate.
  
  "True love which doesn't affect me" applies to SSM, so why not incest? If it doesn't work for incest, then it shouldn't work for SSM, and therefore that entire logic doesn't work and anti-gay marriage wins.

  
  
  Incest and gay marriage are two totally different things. The aversion to one happens naturally, while the liking to the other happens naturally, but rarely. The aversion of incest occurs naturally, and it is naturally deemed a crime. Being gay happens naturally, but it is unnaturally deemed a crime due to religionl. My point is that natural human tendencies do affect norms, not should. I don't even know how to describe the calling calling of others who follow their instincts hypocritical...oh yeah, hypocritical.
  
  To put it in outdated Freudian terms that you guys seem to love so much, this is something along the lines of ID versus the superego in terms of the the establishment of norms. In this case, the superego is being rewritten because religion is losing out to the media, while the ID remains the same.
• Criticalxhit wrote on 2010-05-03 23:26
  [FONT=Century Gothic]

  Quote from Osayidan;26846:

  I can't say that I agree with marriage, since I consider religion one of the worst inventions of humanity, and marriage is a religious thing.
  I do feel that any consenting bunch of people can be together and do whatever they want together, and that it isn't anyone's business but their own.
  

  
  The worst invention of humanity?!...[/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic]:mad:
  [/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic] I have something to say about that...
  
  As a Christian my whole life, I was taught that homosexuality is a perversion (that's the word used in the Bible, I believe). Now, when I entered high school, as was likely, I saw homosexuals. Did I lecture them about being homosexual? No. Did I make a face every time I saw them? No. Even when the (heterosexual) girl beside asked for help on her "Gay Pride" brochure project, I suggested to use a rainbow coloured theme. Just because the Bible says it's a perversion, it doesn't mean Christians shun them & look down at them with scorn.[/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic]
  Believe it or not, my pastor's wife & I were discussing how homosexuals are often kinder than average people.[/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic] In reality, the people most critical of homosexuality are atheists, etc. who talk about them behind their backs, call them or use derogatory terms (in my experience). I've never known a true Christian to bully a homosexual person because of their choices.
  
  Like Osayidan said, marriage is based on religion, so obviously the church would object to a desecration of an ancient sacred ritual, for the sake of accepting what the majority of the society wants. One thing I , and many other Christians find ridiculous, is that even though the church has been suppressed for many eras now, people become so offended when confronted by Christianity, when the Gay Pride Parade marches freely through Toronto. At my High School, I didn't even know there was a Christian club, because they are prohibited to post things without the principal's permission, and even worse, the club is only allowed ~2 announcements per year. Of course, the Gay/Straight alliance gladly posts things around the school, hands out pencils, and announces meetings whenever possible. And the Christian community aren't supposed to take offense this?
  
  

  "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
  —1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV)

  [/FONT] [FONT=Century Gothic]In conclusion, from what I've seen, the majority of forum members don't care whether they "inherit the kingdom of God", and will poke holes in my argument, which they are free to do. After all, God gave us a choice. All I'm saying is that in my opinion hetero shields are preferred to "round" shields (homosexuals in case you didn't catch that metaphor). Hopefully you'll remember this before you jump to any conclusions based on Christianity & Religion in the future. [/FONT][FONT=Century Gothic]Sorry for the bad metaphor :P I'm sure I'll have some more posts in this thread...
  [/FONT]
• Chockeh wrote on 2010-05-03 23:29
  Omg I was visiting Toronto when the Gay Parade passed buy. I was 6, and I felt disgusted. I am ashamed :<.